SC's 9-judge bench reserves verdict in Sabarimala reference on Article 25 vs. gender equality; Centre argues Article 25(1) protects religious freedom, not gender equality

A nine-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, on 14 May 2026 reserved its verdict in the Sabarimala reference after 16 days of arguments spread over five weeks. On 14 and 15 May 2026 the Union of India told the bench that Article 25(1) of the Constitution protects only the freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate religion, and does not by itself guarantee gender equality — that role, the Centre argued, is performed by Articles 14, 15 and 16. The Solicitor General urged the Court to leave the regulation of religious practice to legislative deliberation, warning that repeated judicial intervention in religious affairs risks destabilising denominational autonomy recognised under Article 26. The bench has framed seven constitutional questions, including: the scope and ambit of the right under Article 25; the interplay between an individual's Article 25 right and a religious denomination's Article 26 right; whether Article 26 rights are subject to other fundamental rights beyond the textual exceptions of public order, morality and health; and whether 'morality' in Articles 25–26 means constitutional morality or only public morality. The reference originally arose out of review petitions against the 2018 Sabarimala judgment (*Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala*) that struck down the practice of barring women aged 10–50 from entering the Sabarimala temple, and was later expanded to cover female genital cutting in the Dawoodi Bohra community, restrictions on Muslim women's mosque entry, and the excommunication powers of Parsi denominational bodies. The verdict, whenever it lands, will reset the doctrinal balance between individual rights, group rights and the essential-religious-practices test that has dominated Indian religious-freedom jurisprudence since *Shirur Mutt* (1954).

Bench

9-judge Supreme Court constitution bench led by CJI Surya Kant.

Status (15 May 2026)

verdict reserved after 16 days of hearings over 5 weeks.

Other judges

B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, A Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A G Masih, P B Varale, R Mahadevan, Joymalya Bagchi.

Centre's stand

Article 25(1) protects religious freedom, not gender equality — that comes via Arts 14/15/16.

Reference origin

review petitions against the 2018 Sabarimala judgment (Indian Young Lawyers Assn v. State of Kerala).

Scope

also covers Parsi excommunication, female genital cutting in Dawoodi Bohra community, Muslim women's mosque entry.

Core questions

scope of Article 25, interplay with Article 26, meaning of 'morality', limits of denominational autonomy.

• •A 9-judge Supreme Court constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant reserved its verdict on the Sabarimala reference on 14 May 2026 after 16 days of hearing spread over 5 weeks.
• •The bench framed 7 questions including the scope of Article 25, interplay of Article 25 and Article 26 (denominational rights), and the meaning of 'morality' in Articles 25–26.
• •The Union of India argued that Article 25(1) protects freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate religion, but does not by itself guarantee gender equality.
• •Article 25 is part of Part III (Fundamental Rights); Article 25(1) guarantees freedom of religion subject to public order, morality and health; Article 25(2) lets the State regulate secular activity and provide for social welfare and reform.
• •The matter is a 9-judge reference arising from review petitions against the 2018 Sabarimala judgment (Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala).
• •Other Justices on the bench: B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan, Joymalya Bagchi.
• •The reference also covers Parsi excommunication practices and the test of 'essential religious practices'.

• •: Part III (Fundamental Rights) of the Constitution runs from Article 12 to Article 35.
• •Right to Freedom of Religion is in Articles 25–28: Art. 25 (freedom of conscience), Art. 26 (denominations), Art. 27 (no tax for religious promotion), Art. 28 (no religious instruction in wholly state-funded schools).
• •: Article 15(1) prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth; Article 15(3) enables special provisions for women and children.
• •: Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment, subject to permitted reservations.
• •: Under Article 145(3), constitution-bench cases must be heard by a bench of at least 5 judges; references to larger benches are common in religion-and-equality matters.
• •: The Shirur Mutt judgment (1954) introduced the 'essential religious practices' test in Indian constitutional law.
• •: The Sabarimala temple at Sabarimala, Pathanamthitta district, Kerala, is dedicated to Lord Ayyappa.

Article 25

Constitutional provision in Part III guaranteeing freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health.

Article 26

Constitutional provision guaranteeing every religious denomination the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion, and to own/administer property — subject to public order, morality and health.

Religious denomination

A collection of individuals classed together under the same name; under Indian jurisprudence (S.P. Mittal, 1983), a denomination must have a common faith, a common organisation and a distinctive name.

Essential Religious Practices (ERP) test

Judicially evolved test (Shirur Mutt, 1954) under which the State cannot regulate practices that are essential to a religion; non-essential practices receive lesser protection.

Constitutional morality

The doctrine — invoked in Sabarimala (2018) — that the Court must enforce the morality of the Constitution itself (rights, equality, dignity) rather than dominant social morality.

Reference under Article 145(3)

Procedure by which a Supreme Court bench refers substantial questions of constitutional interpretation to a larger bench; the minimum constitution-bench size is 5 judges.

Pro tem (in this context)

Latin for 'for the time being' — used for a temporarily appointed presiding officer, e.g., a pro tem Speaker of a newly elected legislature.

1. 1954
   Shirur Mutt — Supreme Court lays down the 'essential religious practices' test under Articles 25–26.
2. 1983
   S.P. Mittal v. Union of India — three-fold test for 'religious denomination' (common faith, common organisation, distinctive name).
3. 2018
   Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala — 5-judge bench (4:1) strikes down the Sabarimala age-based ban on women's entry.
4. 2019
   Review bench (3:2) does not allow the review but refers larger questions on Articles 25–26 to a 9-judge bench (November 2019).
5. 2026
   9-judge bench under CJI Surya Kant hears the matter for 16 days over 5 weeks; reserves verdict on 14 May 2026. Centre argues Article 25(1) does not itself deal with gender equality.

• ↔Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017): 5-judge bench struck down instant triple talaq — a similar Articles 14/15/25 balancing exercise.
• ↔Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018): the original Sabarimala judgment that the 9-judge reference now revisits.
• ↔K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): 9-judge bench recognising the fundamental right to privacy — bodily and decisional autonomy now feeds the Sabarimala debate.
• ↔Dawoodi Bohra female genital cutting case: pending issue folded into the present reference.
• ↔Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018): struck down Section 497 IPC (adultery) on Articles 14/15/21 grounds, illustrating the constitutional-morality approach.